Journals / Acta Medica Alanya / 2018 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

Eveluation of Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes

Total Diz Artroplastisi Sonuçlarımızın Değerlendirilmesi

Pages
30–34
Publication Date
2022-09-04
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Total knee arthroplasty surgery is a good treatment option especially for the patients with severe joint degeneration and destruction, which are not be able to be treated with conservative treatments, and also in pain relief in patients with severe knee pain.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: In this study, we retrospectively evaluated our total knee arthroplasty outcomes and discussed our results with the current literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patient and Methods: From 51 patients, 40 patients 65 knees were included to the study after excluding patients with enough follow-up.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Total knee arthroplasty surgery is a good treatment option especially for the patients with severe joint degeneration and destruction, which are not be able to be treated with conservative treatments, and also in pain relief in patients with severe knee pain.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: In this study, we retrospectively evaluated our total knee arthroplasty outcomes and discussed our results with the current literature. Patient and Methods: From 51 patients, 40 patients 65 knees were included to the study after excluding patients with enough follow-up. Revised by American Knee Society, scoring systems filled by patients with face to face encounter before and after surgery were collected. Results: Age range of the patients were 54 to 75 (mean 61.15) years. Range of the follow-up was 11 to 74 (mean 29.3) months. Range of the preoperative knee range of motion was 60° to 95° (77.3°) and postoperative range of motion was 100° to 120° (mean114.4°) (p:0.03). Radiological preoperative evaluation of the patients revealed that 60 (92.3%) knees had varus alignment and 5(7.7%) knees had valgus alignment. Postoperatively, 14 knees (21.5%) had varus, 19(29.2%) knees had neutral and 32(49.3%) knees had valgus alignment. Preoperative Scores were low with a range of 35 to 68 (mean 44.8). Postoperative knee scores were good with a range of 72 to 96 (mean 86.3). Conclusion: Total knee arthroplasty surgery is a good treatment option especially for the patients with severe joint degeneration and destruction, which are not be able to be treated with conservative treatments, and also in pain relief in patients with severe knee pain.

Özet

dönük olarak incelendi ve klinik sonuçlarımız güncel literatür eşliğinde tartışıldı.Hastalar ve yöntem: Bu çalışmaya Kliniğimizde TDP yapılan 51 hastadan yeterlitakipleri bulunan 40 hastanın 65 dizi dâhil edilmiştir. Hastalara preoperatif ve postoperatifdönemde, Amerikan Diz Cemiyetinin (Knee Society) revize etmiş olduğu skorlamasistemleri yüz yüze görüşülerek doldurtularak değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Hastaların yaş dağılımı 54–75 (ortalama 61.15) idi. Takip süresi ise 11–74ay (ort.29.3 ay) arasında değişiyordu. Ameliyat öncesinde hastaların diz hareketaçıklığı 60°-95° (ort.77.3°) arasında değişmekte iken ameliyat sonrası dönemde100°–120° (ort.114.4°) arasında idi (p=0.03). Olguların radyolojik değerlendirmelerinde; ameliyat öncesi dönemde 60 dizde (%92.3) varus dizilimi, 5 dizde (%7.7) ise valgusdizilimi mevcuttu. Ameliyat sonrası dönemde ise 14 dizde (%21.5) varus dizilimi,19 dizde (%29.2) nötral dizilim, 32 dizde (%49.3) ise valgus dizilimi mevcuttu. Skoruise; ameliyat öncesi dönemde 35– 68 (ort.44.8) arasında; kötü̈ olarak değerlendirildi,Ameliyat sonrası dönemde ise diz skoru 72–96 (ort.86.3) arasında iyi olarakbulunmuştur.Sonuç: Total diz protezi cerrahisi özellikle konservatif tedavilere yanıt vermeyen ilerieklem dejenerasyonu ve destrüksiyonu olan ve şiddetli diz ağrısı çeken hastalar içinağrının giderilmesinde başarılı bir tedavi yöntemidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

SERİN, E., KARGIN, D. (2022). Eveluation of Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes. Acta Medica Alanya, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 30–34. https://ajindex.com/articles/425895

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Kurtz S.M, Ong K.L, Lau E, Bozic K.J. Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96: 624-630 Mihalko WM. Arthroplasty of the knee. Canale T (Editör). Campbell’s Operative Ortho-paedics. 13. edition. Elsevier. 2017: 395-468. Lee K,Goodman S.B. Current state and future of joint replacements in the hip and knee. Expert Rev Med Devices 2008; 5: 383-393
  2. Burke DW, O’Flynn H. Primary total knee arthroplasty. Chapman MW (Editör).Chap-man’s Orthopaedic Surgery. 3rd edition, Lippincott Williams&Wilkins, 2001:2869–2895. Ege R: Diz Anatomisi. Ege R. (Editör). Diz sorunları. 1. baskı. Ankara: BizimBüro Basımevi, 1998: 27–54.
  3. Akgün I, Öğüt T, Kesmezacar H. Total diz artroplastisi 4,5 yıllık takip sonuçları. Acta Orthop Traum Turc 2002; 36: 93-99.
  4. Gill GS, Joshi AB, Mills DM. Total condylar knee arthroplasty. 16- to 21-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; 367: 210–215.
  5. MM. Sönmez, A.Berk, M.Uğurlar, RE.Ertürer, Ş.Akman, İ.Öztürk. Şişli Etfal Tıp Bülte-ni.2016; 50:2, 115-123 Scuderi GR, and Clarke HD: Cemented posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19Suppl. 2004; 1: 17-21
  6. Bourne RB, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Mokete L, Guerin J. Influence of patient factors on TKA outcomes at 5 to 11 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 464: 27–31.
  7. Maradit Kremers H., Larson D.R., Crowson C.S., Kremers W.K., Washington R.E., Steiner C.A., et al: Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 1386-1397
  8. Malkani AL, Rand JA, Bryan RS. Total knee arthroplasty with KinematicCondylar Pros-thesis. A ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg 1995; 77 (3): 423–431.
  9. Nozaki H, Banks SA, Suguro T. Observations of femoral rollback in cruciate retaining knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; 404: 308–314.
  10. Clarck CR, Rorabeck CH, Swafford J, Cleland D. Posterior stabilized and cruciate re-taining total knee arthrolasty. Clin Orthop 2001; 392: 208–212.
  11. Lombardi AV Jr, Mallory TH, Fada RA, Hartman JF, Capps SG, Kefauver CA, Adams JB. An algorithm for the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2001; 392: 75–78.
  12. Bercic M., Joshi A., Parvizi J.: Posterior Cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: pp. 439-444
  13. Brassard MF, Insall JN, Scuderi GR, et al: Complications of total knee arthroplasty. In (eds):, ed 4. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone-